This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Ideological Purity or Electability?

Ideological purity...turns into "North Korea"...

I've asked the question: If all liberals could be somehow removed (and lets not get into how they would be removed)...or if all conservatives could same how be removed...is that a political culture that you would want to live in? A place that having diverse ideas...is not allowed...

I'm never ceased to be amazed at the number of people who believe that if everybody lived under the same political philosophies...that all our woes would disappear.

“The final key to the way I promote is bravado,” Donald Trump wrote in his 1987 book, “The Art of the Deal.” “I play to people’s fantasies.”

Re: Ideological Purity or Electability?

Originally Posted by Anagram

In this case, I was assuming the second candidate met that threshold. Most Republican primary voters also find the candidate that doesn't quite fit their views acceptable to vote for in the general election. If more moderate Todd Latham were to beat conservative Steve King in the Iowa primary, most King voters would still vote for Latham.

So in this scenario assume the second candidate met the threshold that you would easily vote for them in the general election, even though they you don't agree with them as much as the first.

Oh, as long as they met the threshold I'd definitely vote for them in the general regardless if they were my primary guy or not.

That said, depending on how close the electability is and how far the difference in ideology is, I may vote the other way in the primary though.

Let's go on a 1/10 scale, just for the hell of it (I know that's a bit tricky).

If there's Guy One in the primary that, on the issues important to me, is a 9 out of 10 but only a 4 out of 10 on electability

Then there's Guy Two in the primary that, on the issues important to me, is like a 7 out of 10 but he's probably a 6 out of 10 on electability.

I could probably go either way in that case in the primary, and would definitely vote for either in the regular.

Drop the issues rating for Guy Two down to 6 or less and I'm probably DEFINITELY voting for Guy One in the primary. Drop Guy One's electability to 3 or less and I'm definitely going for Guy Two. Increase Guy Two's electability, and it becomes a much more difficult decision to not go with him in the primary.

It's all kind of weighed against itself. It also assumes that the one with less electability is unlikely to win. In the above scenario, lets say Guy One's electability was a 6 out of 10 and Guy Two's was 9 out of 10. In that scenario, I'd ABSOLUTELY go for guy one. Why? Because he's more ideologically in line with me AND has a fair shot at being elected. The fact that Guy Two is a shoe in isn't worth it to me because the gamble on Guy One has good enough odds.

Granted, this is all hypothetical with hypothetical numbers...but I think it should highlight how, for me at least, there's not a static answer. It all relates against each other.

But absolutely...as long as the candidate reaches my minimum requirements to feel that I can, in good faith, cast my vote stating that person speaks with my voice in government then they'll get my vote regardless to whether I voted them in the primary or not.

Originally Posted by MrWonka

In fact, I would wager to you that within 10 years of today's date that stupid MAGA hat will be registered as a symbol of hate on par with a Swastika.

Re: Ideological Purity or Electability?

Oh, as long as they met the threshold I'd definitely vote for them in the general regardless if they were my primary guy or not.

That said, depending on how close the electability is and how far the difference in ideology is, I may vote the other way in the primary though.

Let's go on a 1/10 scale, just for the hell of it (I know that's a bit tricky).

If there's Guy One in the primary that, on the issues important to me, is a 9 out of 10 but only a 4 out of 10 on electability

Then there's Guy Two in the primary that, on the issues important to me, is like a 7 out of 10 but he's probably a 6 out of 10 on electability.

I could probably go either way in that case in the primary, and would definitely vote for either in the regular.

Drop the issues rating for Guy Two down to 6 or less and I'm probably DEFINITELY voting for Guy One in the primary. Drop Guy One's electability to 3 or less and I'm definitely going for Guy Two. Increase Guy Two's electability, and it becomes a much more difficult decision to not go with him in the primary.

It's all kind of weighed against itself. It also assumes that the one with less electability is unlikely to win. In the above scenario, lets say Guy One's electability was a 6 out of 10 and Guy Two's was 9 out of 10. In that scenario, I'd ABSOLUTELY go for guy one. Why? Because he's more ideologically in line with me AND has a fair shot at being elected. The fact that Guy Two is a shoe in isn't worth it to me because the gamble on Guy One has good enough odds.

Granted, this is all hypothetical with hypothetical numbers...but I think it should highlight how, for me at least, there's not a static answer. It all relates against each other.

But absolutely...as long as the candidate reaches my minimum requirements to feel that I can, in good faith, cast my vote stating that person speaks with my voice in government then they'll get my vote regardless to whether I voted them in the primary or not.

Out of curiosity...who will always control the thresholds?

As I see it, in a Republic form of government...there can't be an ideological purity.

“The final key to the way I promote is bravado,” Donald Trump wrote in his 1987 book, “The Art of the Deal.” “I play to people’s fantasies.”

Re: Ideological Purity or Electability?

Originally Posted by Fisher

No. my Congressman is a cufflink wearing dandy and has been since long before he was a Member and he will let GOP, TP, or anybody else with cash in hand feel him up just as long as it keeps him in office I think.

Ummm what does all the last part have to do with elitist? The elite can be money grubbing whores, they just dress and justify it better. might be I have a different angle to target but I see elitist dandies like Willard dressing down to move among the people. The Carhart so clean and stiff because it is brand new and never was or will be in his closet.

Of course he isn't the only elitist dandy, just the one that quickly came to mind. Just seems to me every elitist I have seen sure looks like a dandy to me.

Re: Ideological Purity or Electability?

Originally Posted by Removable Mind

Out of curiosity...who will always control the thresholds?

As I see it, in a Republic form of government...there can't be an ideological purity.

Ultimately the threshold is for each individual person. All I can really speak about is for myself. I don't expect ideological purity, but I at least expect solid ideological identity on the majority of things most important to me if you want to get my vote.

Originally Posted by MrWonka

In fact, I would wager to you that within 10 years of today's date that stupid MAGA hat will be registered as a symbol of hate on par with a Swastika.

Re: Ideological Purity or Electability?

I depends. In general are whole electoral process needs to be restructured to give third party candidates a chance. The debate process needs to allow third party members also, because of the problem with the ideological issue. I voted Other.

Re: Ideological Purity or Electability?

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

Ultimately the threshold is for each individual person. All I can really speak about is for myself. I don't expect ideological purity, but I at least expect solid ideological identity on the majority of things most important to me if you want to get my vote.

I guess that's what's called partisanship. And again, I think it would impossible to have a republic form of government without more than on political view and philosophy and party.

Party purity might help this country. Both the Dems and Repubs...are have gone totally bat****, in my humble opinion. Political philosophies have become as wildly divided in people much in the same way as a given religion. In other words....if you get down to the nuts and bolts of individual beliefs...everybody has their own version of what they think their party...or philosophy really is or means.

Thanks...

“The final key to the way I promote is bravado,” Donald Trump wrote in his 1987 book, “The Art of the Deal.” “I play to people’s fantasies.”

Re: Ideological Purity or Electability?

Originally Posted by Anagram

In the past few elections, Republican primary voters have nominated many candidates who appeared to be less electable than other possible choices. High profile examples of this are Christine O'Donnell over Mike Castle in Delaware, Ken Buck over Jane Norton in Colorado, Joe Miller over Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, Sharon Angle over Danny Tarkanian in Nevada, Richard Mourdock over Dick Lugar in Indiana, and Todd Akin over Sarah Steelman in Missouri. The end result of this was five senate seats that could very well have gone to Republicans ending up in Democrat hands, with only Alaska staying Republican after Murkowski's write-in bid. Democrats have had big problems with this in the past too, but not as recently.

For the next set of races its already looking like this could come into play again. Steve King, who is heavily considering running for senate, is being dissuaded by the Republican establishment due to his perceived unelectability. Although, if he does run, he is the favorite to win the nomination. Paul Broun in Georgia who announced he was running for Senate is also perceived as a less than electable candidate, who if nominated, could turn red Georgia into a possible Democrat pickup opportunity.

My question is then if you were deciding between two candidates which trait would you value more? Electability or ideological purity? Would you choose the candidate whose ideals were closest to your own, even if that candidate would have little chance of getting elected? Or would you go with the one who does not share all of your viewpoints, although they are closer than the main competitor, and has a much better chance of being elected? In general, which do you find more important in a candidate?

I vote based on networks, which generally means straight ticket Democrat. My perception is that society is a ongoing train wreck and that the government is the guy at the controls who just might be able to soften the impact a bit. In that context, there's not much either a single individual or a platform can do to save it. Generally speaking, I won't vote for an individual Republican regardless of merit because the "Republican" political network exerts mostly harmful influence on anything it touches or gets involved with.

Last edited by Morality Games; 02-08-13 at 11:48 PM.

If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

Re: Ideological Purity or Electability?

Originally Posted by Anagram

In the past few elections, Republican primary voters have nominated many candidates who appeared to be less electable than other possible choices. High profile examples of this are Christine O'Donnell over Mike Castle in Delaware, Ken Buck over Jane Norton in Colorado, Joe Miller over Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, Sharon Angle over Danny Tarkanian in Nevada, Richard Mourdock over Dick Lugar in Indiana, and Todd Akin over Sarah Steelman in Missouri. The end result of this was five senate seats that could very well have gone to Republicans ending up in Democrat hands, with only Alaska staying Republican after Murkowski's write-in bid. Democrats have had big problems with this in the past too, but not as recently.

For the next set of races its already looking like this could come into play again. Steve King, who is heavily considering running for senate, is being dissuaded by the Republican establishment due to his perceived unelectability. Although, if he does run, he is the favorite to win the nomination. Paul Broun in Georgia who announced he was running for Senate is also perceived as a less than electable candidate, who if nominated, could turn red Georgia into a possible Democrat pickup opportunity.

My question is then if you were deciding between two candidates which trait would you value more? Electability or ideological purity? Would you choose the candidate whose ideals were closest to your own, even if that candidate would have little chance of getting elected? Or would you go with the one who does not share all of your viewpoints, although they are closer than the main competitor, and has a much better chance of being elected? In general, which do you find more important in a candidate?

I suppose that if you are a party-tard then your core beliefs are irreverent. Because all that matters is your party's victory regardless of what views you claim to hav. I don't think anyone expect candidates to share a 100% of their views. They do however expect that candidate to support a good portion of their core views and to actually mean what they say, not pull a John Kerry or Mitt Romney because they decided they wanted to run for president.

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"